Skip to Content

April 3, 1996 Minutes

Present: Bible, Caverly, Ford, Glassman, Horne, Hunter, Kurtz,
Middlebrook, Parkin-Speer, Pascoe, Sawey, Stedman, Swinney, Weller, and
Winek. Absent: Stedman.

Guests: Profs. Max Warshauer (Math), Carlos Gutierrez (Physics), Sam
Tarsitano (Biology), Edgar Laird (Ombudsman); Margaret Vaverek (Library
liaison); Adolph Trudeau (The File), James Driscoll (San Marcos Daily
Record), Mike Moore, and Sandra Akridge.

17 CoFGO REPORT (Prof. Hunter)
82 SPONSORED PROJECTS (Warshauer Letter)

The meeting was called to order at 4:00, Chair Swinney presiding.


VPAA Gratz shared with CAD and CAD/Chairs at their meetings that the
University has been asked by the Board of Regents to offer 2.5% for
performance,2.5% for merit, and 1% for bonus. This runs counter to PPS 7.10
which requires 3/4 of salary monies to go to performance (longevity) and 1/4 to
merit (no bonus mentioned in PPS).

After lengthy and some strongly-stated discussion, the following
items were moved and passed:

(1) VPAA Gratz should be requested to (a) describe in detail
how we have arrived at a position that abrogates PPS 7.10, (b) explain
whether the Board of Regents understands and agrees to abrogating PPS 7.10,
(c) request that PPS 7.10 be updated (and followed) to include bonus. The
general consensus was that the current PPS should be followed with the
addition of bonus.

(2) Seven "gray" areas were also discussed and voted upon:

(a) Should performance be rewarded by percentage or a
flat sum? An alternative was suggested by someone in Geography (and
actually this has been discussed before in the Senate) that performance
should be graduated, e.g. 3.0% for those under $30,000, 2.5% for those
under $60,000, and 2.0% for those $60,000 and over. A motion to go with
increase on a current 2.5% basis was passed, since those polled in depts.
seemed to support this--currently. [Perhaps this runs counter to equity
discussed below--a high priority item.]

(b) Minimum and maximum steps for merit: In the past
merit has been given equally across-the-board by some depts. and reserved
for larger percentages for the few in others. A motion to limit merit to 5
steps (2.5%) for the three years (Jan. 1993-Dec. 1995) was defeated 5 to 7.
A motion passed 10 to 2 that: Merit from 1 to 9 steps (that's one-half
percent to 4.5%) be allowed, based on documented evidence of teaching,
scholarship, and service, and that documentation be open to all who want to
see it in the department. The point is that merit be granted on
documentation of real merit during the three-year period, not on longevity
or politics.

(c) Bonus: Bonuses (not currently mentioned in PPS
7.10) would be once-a-year awards not added to the salary base. This would
provide an ongoing pot for distribution every year, including years in
which there is no money for regular merit. The criteria would be
ostensibly the same as merit (teaching/scholarship/service), but be aimed
at something really special done during the preceding year (e.g. a dynamite
teaching technique, an outstanding book, stellar service). By limiting it
to each ongoing year (rather than reaching back since the last merit
bonus), new faculty would have a better break to win it.

The Senate passed a motion 11 to 1 (plus an abstention) that each
dept. receive 1% for bonus distribution, to be distributed by the senior
faculty and chair according to the above special contribution criteria, and
that the names of recipients be published for public acclaim.

(d) Bumping: After discussion the Senate voted to bump
an increase for starting salaries by 2.5%, added to base. This is not a
major reduction of the salary pool and would help us a little on the

(e) Equity: The Senate voted to appoint two persons
each from the Senate, chairs, and deans to a committee to oversee an equity
study. There are many models of how to do this throughout the country and
within a year we would like to see something concrete, and methodologically
sound, addressing the equity problem noted by the vast majority on last
spring's faculty salary opinion survey.

(f) Promotions: It has been suggested that the 7% (14
step) raise that goes with promotions is perhaps not enough, given that
merit for some in the past has reached 20 steps. The Senate voted to fold
this question into the mandate of the Equity Committee approved in (e)
above. Equity, starting salaries, and various modes of compression are
of-a-piece in these considerations.

(g) Chair and Dean merit: In the past, chairs and deans
have received across-the-board raises, but not merit. Merit raises for these
faculty are not authorized in policy; indeed, chairs and deans are specifically
exempted for the terms of 7.10. The Senate voted to recommend that chairs and
deans should not get merit out of the faculty merit pot, since we have been
informed by Pres. Supple that administrators are doing well in Texas compared
to the sorry position of faculty and staff. [Note: That doesn't mean SWT
administrators are doing well compared to the State, region, or nation. It
just says that they are doing better that the rest of us when we are compared
to our peers in-state or around the country.]

It was also brought up that the Senate should address our
University needs at least once a year to the Board of Regents, e.g. when
they meet on our campus. If we had been at the Board meeting when the
presumed "mandate" re the 2.5/2.5/1.0 (performance/merit/bonus) numbers
were decided, we could have ascertained whether the Board was apprised of
PPS 7.10 distribution figures, etc.

Following is Chair Swinney's memorandum to VPAA Gratz communicating the
Senate's recommendations for the CAD meeting on the day following the Senate

"Working from the decision announced at CAD last week that the raises for next
year will take the form of 2.5% performance, 2.5% merit, and 1% bonus pools,
and understanding that the evaluation period for merit will be January 1, 1993
to December 31, 1995, the Senate spent substantial time yesterday discussing
those issues which we believe are still on the table. Following are our

"1) Percentage vs. flat dollar amounts for performance.

"We recommend that the performance raise take the form of a percentage of base

"The evidence would seem to indicate that the disparity between lower rank
salaries and higher rank salaries is one of the effects of past merit cycles.
Therefore, it seems logically inconsistent to address that disparity with
constant dollar raises at the same time we are also again doing merit. This
matter might best be folded into number 5, below.

"2) Minimum and maximum steps for merit.

"We recommend that in the merit cycle the minimum be set at 1 step and the
maximum be set at 9 steps.

"We further recommend that the merit raises be based on documented superior
activity in the areas of teaching, scholarly/creative and/or service and not be
given across the board, for salary adjustments, or other raises that are not
based purely on merit.

"3) Criteria, amounts, etc. for the bonus.

"We recommend that the 1% bonus pool be allocated on a pro rata basis to all
departments, that existing criteria for merit be used, that awards be based on
a one-year evaluation period, and that the names, amounts, and accomplishments
of recipients be published after the awards are made.

"We did not define what "one year" means. If the awards are given this spring,
perhaps it should be calendar 95; if next fall, maybe academic 95-96. Nor did
we discuss amounts. If my math is right, there should be about $350,000 in
this pool. This could fund 350 $1,000 awards, 175 $2,000 awards, 100 $3,500
awards, etc. Just to open the bidding, I would suggest that awards might range
from $1,000 to $5,000. If this is to be done next fall, there will be plenty
of time to get faculty suggestions on the range.

"4) Bumping the pay plan.

"We recommend that the salary scale for new faculty hires be increased by the
performance rate of 2.5%.

"5) Equity adjustments.

"We do not see how equity adjustments can be made without a comprehensive
study. Therefore, we recommend, as we have recommended before, that such a
study be initiated with findings and recommendations to be completed by next
spring. We suggest that a six-person committee (perhaps 2 faculty, 2 chairs,
and 2 deans) be charged to oversee this effort, although clearly IRP and
selected faculty with statistical expertise must be involved in the effort.

"6) Amounts for promotions.

"The Senate suspects that current raises (14 steps, 7%) for promotion to
associate and/or full professor is too low. It is too late to address this
issue this year, so we suggest that this question be folded into (5), above.

"7) Chair and dean merit.

"We recommend that, consistent with past practice, chairs and deans not be
included in the merit cycle this year. However, long-term we believe that
these faculty should be brought under the ambit of the merit section of PPS

* * *

"Finally, on the broader issue of long-term faculty salary policy, the Senate
is distressed that PPS 7.10 has been superseded for this cycle. We would like
to discuss with you and President Supple, perhaps at an upcoming PAAG,
precisely how this happened. We wonder, for example, whether Board members
know of or understand our policy.

"We urge that as we plan for FY98, that our salary policy (7.10) be the point
of departure. Is it not time to revise it? Clearly, if bonuses are to be a
permanent part of our system, they should be incorporated in the policy. The
chair merit issue needs to be resolved. The inflation percentage in paragraph
11 should be specified.

"I am going to recommend to the Senate that it initiate a revised draft for the
consideration of the academic community."

[On Thursday, CAD endorsed the Senate recommendations for a fixed-percentage
performance raise and bumping the pay plan. The Deans preferred 3 to 15 steps
merit, rather that the Senate's suggested 1 to 9. VPAA Gratz said that he would
take these items to President Supple for final decision on Monday, so that
guidelines for salary review could be completed and distributed to account
managers. The other items remain on the table for continuing discussion.]


All comments on the workload draft are due by Monday, April 8. This
important item was RTA'd because of time constraints. [Upon request from Chair
Swinney, VPAA Gratz has extended the deadline for comments until Friday, April
19. It will be on the Senate Agenda on the 17th. Faculty are encouraged to
peruse this draft and give their comments to their Senator.]

17 CoFGO REPORT (Prof. Hunter)

RTA'd because of time.

82 SPONSORED PROJECTS (Warshauer Letter)

Prof. Warshauer explained his experience with the Development
Foundation and Sponsored Projects in getting permission to submit proposals
to foundations and businesses for grants to support the SWT Honors Summer
Math Camp. The camp is in its seventh year, runs for six weeks each
summer, houses and trains high school students from around the state (with
10% from other states), hires teachers from prestigious universities across
the country ($400 a week and transportation), and has a record of
outstanding students (e.g. one was recently congratulated by Pres. Clinton
for a perfect SAT score, a fourth of TX recipients of the USA Math Talent
Search are grads of the camp, etc.).

NSF has been contributing several hundred thousand a year ($846,000
recently) for the last few years from its Young Scholars fund. This fund,
however, provides seed money to new programs and cannot be counted on to
back us forever. To maintain scholarships and teacher support, an
endowment fund has been started and an estimated $1.6 million will be
needed to keep the camp afloat at current level. The first monies
($10,000) for the fund were supplied by a foundation which the Development
Foundation and Sponsored Projects office said not to bother to apply to
because they never gave us anything before.

Recently Prof. Warshauer created a data bank of 358 possible
foundations and businesses to which he wanted to send packets of
information soliciting grants for the math camp foundation. The list went
first to the Development Foundation (a private 5013C3 not-for-profit
organization administered by Gerald Hill in University Advancement) who
then sent it on to SWT's Sponsored Projects office (Dr. Mimi Tangum). All
but 29 organizations were scratched from the list as possibilities from
which to solicit funds.

Since part of the criteria for de-selecting donors was that they
would accept only one grant proposal a year from an institution, this
raised the questions of (a) is this really the case and (b) who is in the
queue ahead of us from SWT? Prof. Warshauer's grant-supported secretary
was able to call the first 100 on the list of 358 on Mon.-Wed. afternoon of
this week and found 96 said they would be happy to look at all submissions
from any institution.

Prof. Warshauer asked the Senate to examine: (1) flow-charts of
current and his proposed practices for grant submission, (2) a draft of
proposed guidelines which would, in essence, require the DF and SP to
approve donors unless donors were exclusive (one grant considered per
institution per year) and other SWT proposals were in the queue or there
were other salient reasons, which should be shared with the grant proposer,
and (3) a form for tracking the progress of grant proposals through
internal offices which includes reasons for rejections of donors to be

After much discussion, the Senate voted to do the following:

(1) Find where this policy/criteria is written down and what it
is--and the flow of proposals through the 5013C Development Foundation in
the University's Advancement Center and Sponsored Projects;

(2) Return this to the agenda when we have a better picture of
policy and practice;

(3) Send policy suggestions to the offices involved for comments.




(1) Senators were asked to be forthcoming soon with nominations for
the vacancy on the Faculty Grievance Committee. Faculty folks with nominations
should contact their Senators immediately with suggestions of capable associate
and full professors.

(2) Senators turned in their updated lists of those eligible to run
for senator in all departments which will not have a sitting senator in the
38th Senate starting in late April or early May. Eligibility requirements are:
tenure, assistant prof. or above, and three years at SWT. Everyone eligible
will be on the first ballot (except any retiring senators who do not choose to
run). The second ballot will be a run-off between the top candidates from each
School, as the 15 seats are apportioned by School.


The minutes were approved.


(1) Packets of documentation were distributed for the 13
developmental leave candidates to be interviewed next week.

(2) Prof. Horne asked Senators to ponder if athletes should be
held to the same academic admission standards as other entering students.

Meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m.

Ramona Ford